Supreme Court of Georgia Disbars 1
One attorney discipline opinion was released Monday.
March 11, 2019 at 11:17 AM
4 minute read
The Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday issued the following opinions:
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: March 11, 2019
S19Y0337-S19Y0340. IN THE MATTER OF NEIL LARSON (four cases).
PER CURIAM.
These disciplinary matters are before the Court on four Notices of Discipline seeking the disbarment of Neil Larson (State Bar No. 438468), based on grievances alleging that he abandoned various clients. The State Bar served Larson with each Notice of Discipline by publication, but he failed to file any Notices of Rejection. Therefore, he is in default, has waived his right to evidentiary hearings, and is subject to such discipline and further proceedings as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). Larson is currently under interim suspension based on his failure to respond to a Notice of Investigation. See In the Matter of Larson, S19Y0168 (Sept. 19, 2018).
The facts, as deemed admitted by virtue of Larson's default, show that in three separate cases Larson agreed to represent clients in criminal matters; that those clients paid Larson in advance for the representation; that Larson nevertheless failed to consult with the clients concerning the scope of the representation; that he failed to pursue the clients' matters diligently; that he failed to communicate with the clients; that he waived one client's rights without authorization; that he failed to respond to inquiries from his clients; that he failed to appear at scheduled hearings; and that he ultimately failed to refund unearned fees. Moreover, in one case, he made misrepresentations to the client's family about the status of the matter. With regard to the fourth case, it appears that, although Larson took on the representation of a client in a case in State Court, he failed to appear at hearings; failed to communicate with his client; and failed to respond to inquiries or notices from the court. In all four of the above matters, it appears that Larson abandoned his clients' cases to the detriment of those clients. And, although Larson was served by publication with the Notice of Investigation in each of these cases, he failed to submit a sworn response as required by Bar Rule 4-204.3.
Based on these facts, the Investigative Panel found probable cause to believe that Larson violated Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d), 3.2, 8.4 (a) (4), and 9.3 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.2 (a), 1.3, and 8.4 (a) (4) is disbarment, and the maximum sanction for a violation of Rules 1.4, 1.16, 3.2, and 9.3 is a public reprimand. In each case, the Bar sought disbarment as the appropriate discipline, citing in aggravation that Larson acted dishonestly in collecting a fee and abandoning his clients' cases; that he violated multiple rules of professional conduct; that he has multiple disciplinary actions currently pending against him, which shows a pattern of neglect; and that he has substantial experience in the practice of law, having been admitted to the Bar in 2000. Additionally, the Bar noted that Larson has prior disciplinary history, as he received an Investigative Panel Reprimand in January 2007, for violating Rules 1.15 (I), 1.15 (II), 4.1, and 8.4 (a) (4). The Bar cited no factors in mitigation of discipline.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter. See In the Matter of Moore, 303 Ga. 296 (811 SE2d 343) (2018) (disbarring attorney with no disciplinary history, who abandoned multiple clients and failed to respond in disciplinary proceedings); In the Matter of Levy, 284 Ga. 281 (664 SE2d 195) (2008) (same). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the name of Neil Larson be removed from the rolls of persons authorized to practice law in the State of Georgia. Larson is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (b).
Disbarred. All the Justices concur.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'A 58-Year-Old Engine That Needs an Overhaul': Judge Wants Traffic Law Amended
3 minute readAppeals Court Removes Fulton DA From Georgia Election Case Against Trump, Others
6 minute readFamily of 'Cop City' Activist Killed by Ga. Troopers Files Federal Lawsuit
5 minute readFulton Judge Rejects Attempt by Trump Campaign Lawyer to Invalidate Guilty Plea in Georgia Election Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250